Agenda item

Sarah Phillips (School Place Planning Project Manager) provided the Committee with the latest Quarterly School Places Planning Update.

Overall, trends showed that demand for places in primary schools was high andplateauing. A small number of primary schools had surplus places and in light of this, were planning to reduce their Planned Admission Numbers (PANs), while some schools were trialling informal caps in certain year groups. Places were being carefully managed to ensure parents still received adequate choice over their children’s school places.

Demand for places at secondary schools was increasing, with higher numbers of pupils transitioning from primary to secondary places. Many schools within the Borough had been enlarged with new buildings and facilities to accommodate this increased demand. Some schools had added temporary extra places, and these had been carefully considered in light of parental preferences and the Borough’s transport links. Offer day was due on Monday 2 March, upon which day most parents would receive a place for their children at one of their preferred schools. Planning for permanent solutions to meet demand was continuing.

The Committee asked a number of questions, including:

How many of the approximately 51k children attending Hillingdon schools actually lived in the Borough?

Of the 51k, roughly 15% of Hillingdon pupils did not live in the Borough. However, approximately 15% of residents also chose to attend schools outside of Hillingdon. Schools on the boundary of Hillingdon often saw large numbers of pupils attending from other boroughs, up to 65% in some schools.

From a planning perspective, what were the considerations for schools looking to use temporary accommodation to meet demand for places?

The school would need to consider whether the land in question was within a Green Belt, within a floodplain, or whether the land was currently a playing field. Schools would be required to consult with all stakeholders, including Sport England (on the matter of the playing fields). Appeals to the Secretary of State would be required to overcome any veto by Sport England.

How long was considered ‘temporary’ accommodation?

The length of term for temporary accommodation would be conditioned at the outset, e.g. for 3 years. Renewals could then be considered as and when required.

The report listed the number of pupils transferring to secondary from primary. What was the rate for this transition?

The ratio of pupils transferring from primary to secondary schools was approximately 96%, with some pupils moving to schools outside of the Borough. Conversely, pupils from other boroughs also chose to attend Hillingdon schools. It was highlighted that since the publication of the report, the number of extra bulge places being offered by schools across the Borough was 145.

Primary schools were facing difficulties regarding pupil places. The example of a school within Northwood was highlighted. Were too many primary places being put into schools?

At the time of the commissioning of places, forecasts showed a certain level of demand.  However, changes in population across the Borough, for example due to location of jobs, choice of settlement areas, family birth rates etc. had resulted in a change of demand in certain areas. It was expected that such demographics would naturally ebb and flow across 30+ years. All children within the Borough had been provided with a school place, on time, during a period of considerable increased demand for primary school places.

The demand for secondary school places was being managed through temporary measures such as bulge years. The Borough was currently holding a small amount of surplus places, 1%, when guidance from central government suggested authorities should provide 5-10%. The number of children currently in certain primary school years was exceeding secondary places. Could the officers provide any information around a potential new school in the south of the Borough that could help alleviate these issues?

The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) was responsible for identifying a site for the approved new secondary free school.

Options were begin presented to Cabinet members on how to address demand for school places in the long term. A firm agreement was in place to expand a school in the south of the Borough, with options available to expand two further schools, (though this could require reconfiguring the schools, which would result in a high unit cost). Officers were continuing to work closely with schools, and would provide further updates to the Committee when able.

If a school was struggling to accommodate its pupils, did the Council have the power to install new accommodation?

The Council retained a budget for such matters, though the need to install new accommodation was assessed on an individual basis.

How much interaction did the Council have with schools outside of Hillingdon when assessing population growth and potential demand for places in the Borough?

Regular meetings with neighbouring authorities were held throughout each school term, for the purposes of assessing growth and demand.

A school within the north of the Borough as struggling financially due to a lack of pupils. Was the Council working to address this?

Officers were in close dialogue with the school and the ESFA. It would not be appropriate to share further detail at this time.

The report made reference to new ‘arrivals’. Were these people new to the Borough, or new to the UK?

This could be both, or either. The report did not specify.

How many unfilled places were expected in Year 7 for September 2020?

Unfilled places were expected to be lower than 5%.

Members requested that future reports include a detailed section on Special Needs cohorts, and that tables and charts were enlarged to aid comprehensibility.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.